Jump to content
think

Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats As Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, think said:

 

 

 

 

And Democrats have been blaming republicans for being racist since before you were born. Too bad it never stops because a divided country is a weak country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems were the racists, are the racists, and forever will be the racists. The GOP was formed to end racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, think said:

 

 

 

 

AND, Republicans have been RIGHT about Democrats for ALL of that time... however, it has only been RECENTLY that Democrats are ADMITTING that they are SOCIALISTS !!  WHICH, although odd, is positive in a way.  WHY?  Because GONE are the days when a Republican, who called a Democrat a Socialist, is attacked as a LIAR... NOW, Democrats have MANY SOCIALISTS as PART of their Party (i.e. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and others... some STILL in the closet), they VENERATE Socialist Tactics and Policies (i.e. the Green New Deal), VOTE for Socialists candidates  (Bernie Sanders - Socialist for President)... and SO there's not really even a QUESTION WHAT they are any longer.

 

NOW, the 50% of the Democrat Party who are NOT Socialists, need to be made to understand that SOCIALISM and Democracy are NOT comparable... because Socialism and FREEDOM are not comparable... for Socialism to work, the population must be subjugated... because NO ONE can be "equal" under Socialism, if ONE man works harder and is more successful than another... SO:  1)  the pursuit of happiness MUST go first, then 2)  liberty must be ceded to the Socialist government to "PROVIDE equality"... then, FINALLY... without "Liberty" and the "Pursuit of Happiness",   3)  Life becomes more that of a SLAVE than anything else, and people who are FACED with the prospects, are MUCH more apt to GIVE their lives in a fight to REGAIN their freedom...

 

All you need to do is look at Venezuela !!  IF we elect an out & our Socialist as President?  It COULD be our future !!

 

THAT is what SOCIALISM has to offer... in FACT, LESS than NOTHING... it is an EVIL which must be RESISTED !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

AND, Republicans have been RIGHT about Democrats for ALL of that time... however, it has only been RECENTLY that Democrats are ADMITTING that they are SOCIALISTS !!  WHICH, although odd, is positive in a way.  WHY?  Because GONE are the days when a Republican, who called a Democrat a Socialist, is attacked as a LIAR... NOW, Democrats have MANY SOCIALISTS as PART of their Party (i.e. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and others... some STILL in the closet), they VENERATE Socialist Tactics and Policies (i.e. the Green New Deal), VOTE for Socialists candidates  (Bernie Sanders - Socialist for President)... and SO there's not really even a QUESTION WHAT they are any longer.

 

NOW, the 50% of the Democrat Party who are NOT Socialists, need to be made to understand that SOCIALISM and Democracy are NOT comparable... because Socialism and FREEDOM are not comparable... for Socialism to work, the population must be subjugated... because NO ONE can be "equal" under Socialism, if ONE man works harder and is more successful than another... SO:  1)  the pursuit of happiness MUST go first, then 2)  liberty must be ceded to the Socialist government to "PROVIDE equality"... then, FINALLY... without "Liberty" and the "Pursuit of Happiness",   3)  Life becomes more that of a SLAVE than anything else, and people who are FACED with the prospects, are MUCH more apt to GIVE their lives in a fight to REGAIN their freedom...

 

All you need to do is look at Venezuela !!  IF we elect an out & our Socialist as President?  It COULD be our future !!

 

THAT is what SOCIALISM has to offer... in FACT, LESS than NOTHING... it is an EVIL which must be RESISTED !!

 

So you're against Social Security? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, think said:

 

So your against Social Security? 

 

 

SS is not socialism you pay into it. You get the money back at some time in  your life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Medicare For All would be federally provided health insurance that you pay into. You get health care insurance provided without deductibles and co-pays.

 

Quote
so·cial se·cu·ri·ty

Dictionary result for social security

/ˌsōSHəl səˈkyo͝orədē/
noun
 
  1. any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate or no income.
    "she was living on social security"
    • (in the US) a federal insurance program that provides benefits to retired people and those who are unemployed or disabled.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, johndnorth said:

Dems were the racists, are the racists, and forever will be the racists. The GOP was formed to end racism. 

Yes sir, the left couldn't survive without Racism Check this out.

 

Students at South Carolina school told to pick cotton, sing ‘slave song’ on field trip, report says


by Fox News
GREENVILLE, S.C. – Students at a South Carolina elementary school were told to pick cotton and sing a slave song as part of a class field trip during Black History Month, according to a local television station. 
Cell phone video provided to Fox 46 Charlotte shows fifth-graders from Ebenezer Avenue Elementary picking cotton while being instructed to sing, "I like it when you fill the sack. I like it when you don't talk back. Make money for me."
"I think it's making a mockery," Jessica Blanchard, whose 10-year-old son attended the field trip, told the station. "A mockery of slavery. A mockery of what our people went through."
The students were on a field trip to the Carroll School, which was built in 1929 for African-Americans and now serves as a teaching center for fifth-graders to learn about the effects of the Great Depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TBHWT said:

SS is not socialism you pay into it. You get the money back at some time in  your life. 

Republicans told Americans that Social Security WAS socialism when FDR was president

Republicans told Americans that Medicare WAS socialism when LBJ was president.

 

Were they LYING to Americans then, or now, or both?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maineman said:

Republicans told Americans that Social Security WAS socialism when FDR was president

Republicans told Americans that Medicare WAS socialism when LBJ was president.

 

Were they LYING to Americans then, or now, or both?????

THEY DIDN'T SAY SUCH A THING YOU FUKKING PUSSYBOY FUKKING COWARD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, think said:

So you're against Social Security? 

 

I am against it for the reasons of it gives false security for our seniors

the system will go broke and what happens to our grandchildren?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TBHWT said:

SS is not socialism you pay into it. You get the money back at some time in  your life. 

It is surely a form of socialism. And no. Everyone does NOT get his money back. If your are single and die before you enroll for benefits, you get nothing.If you are married and live to be 100  and your wife outlives you, you collect. Lots more money than you ever put in. It is a combination of socialism ands insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

I am against it for the reasons of it gives false security for our seniors

the system will go broke and what happens to our grandchildren?

 

 

It has paid out regularly since 1939. Why is a false sense of security with no basis in h history worse than nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

I am against it for the reasons of it gives false security for our seniors

the system will go broke and what happens to our grandchildren?

 

 

Simple to save social security. Remove the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, slideman said:

Simple to save social security. Remove the cap.

yes simple, but democrats wont vote for that!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

LMFAO from liberal rags that lie all the time... you really are on little sad fagboy.

I will never reply to you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, think said:

 

 

 

YOU ARE SOCIALISTS AND FAGGOTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, maineman said:

Republicans told Americans that Social Security WAS socialism when FDR was president

Republicans told Americans that Medicare WAS socialism when LBJ was president.

 

Were they LYING to Americans then, or now, or both?????

Please don't just blame Republicans for lying there's a lot of lying to go around theses days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, think said:

 

So you're against Social Security? 

 

 

Hey think ... why are you hiding from a discussion of FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBHWT said:

SS is not socialism you pay into it. You get the money back at some time in  your life. 

 

FALSE.  

 

Many sources now say that starting with those who retired in 2000, SS participants get less back, on average, than they put into the system (see http://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-not-deal-once-165406538.html , for example).    But I think the payback from social security is worse than that and has been for a long time. That’s because the Social Security Administration ran simulations (and they should be biased, if anything, towards presenting SS in the best possible light, don’t you think?) to find the Moneys Worth Ratio (MWR … the ratio of present value of expected benefits to the present value of expected payroll taxes) of the program and the result of those analysis can be summarized by this Wikipedia chart:

 

Social_Security_Benefits_by_Income_Quint

 

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Social_Security_Benefits_by_Income_Quintile.jpg)


As you can see, the middle income earners are barely making back what they put into the program. The highest income earners are only getting about 60% back. Only the lowest earners are doing well and even they are only doubling their contributions. This 2012 SSA publication ( http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/ran7/index.html ) breaks the figures from which those curves came down by income levels (Very Low, Low, Medium High and Maximum), year of birth (1920-2004), and whether the recipient is a single male, single female, one-earner couple or a two earner couple.  See Table 1 at the linked article for the results.
 
Look at the Medium income group first. Those were people earning $41,655. You’ll note that single men, regardless of age, consistently get a return under 1 … which means they get less than they put into the program. Women, because they live longer, do better, but most birth years, they still see returns of less than 1 and the few years that didn’t, show returns of only 1.01-1.03. That's awful. True, one-earner couples do better. They see ratios of 1.48-1.70. But that’s because only one person in the couple is contributing but payouts are for two. Two earner couples do much worse with MWRs most years that are below one and only 1.01-1.02 in the good years. Those are abysmal returns.
 
Next, look at the High income group ($66,648). Single men get a 0.59—0.77 return. Single women get a 0.66-0.86 return. Single earner couples get 1.23-1.42 returns. And two earner couples get 0.69-0.84 returns. Abysmal doesn’t even begin to describe how bad those returns are, folks.
 
Look at the Maximum income group. Even the one-earner couples barely break even. Two earner couples and single women get back about 60% of what they contributed (as shown in the above chart) and single men get less than 60% of their contributions back. They should be taking up arms.
 
Only those in the Low and Very Low income group (the Democratic Socialist Party’s base that is now out protesting in the streets) consistently get returns above 1. And even those are nothing to gloat about. As I noted, the highest returns in the Low group (again one earner couples) is 2-2.25. The others get returns between 1.1 and 1.3. They could have done much better just putting their money in government bonds. And it would be their money. Not a debt the government can eliminate at any moment with the stroke of a pen. 
 
That’s how bad Social Security has been and will be for most Americans. In fact, the SSA did those same calculations for several scenarios (see the link). The one above was Present Law … in other words, using the taxes and benefits specified in present laws (at the time). The other two tables are for efforts to come to grip with the coming bankruptcy of the system. The first (Table 2) is for an Increased Payroll Tax scenario (payroll taxes increase from 12.4% to 16.89%). The other (Table 3) is for a Payable Benefits scenario (where benefits gradually decrease after “trust fund” reserve depletion to 73% of scheduled benefits in 2086). The other scenarios don’t make Table 1 look any better in terms of what the MWRs are for SS’ participants. Just saying …
 
The bottom line, TBHWT, is that SS contributors don’t make out like bandits, they get shafted, like most investors in ponzi schemes do. Because NOTHING is really invested and earns interest. Nothing was EVER really invested. It was ALL spent as it came in. The high returns of the early years were only possible because lots of contributors where handing money to very few retirees and because the dishonest government wanted to convince people that Social Security was a good idea. The ratio of payees to retirees started out at 159 to 1. Imagine that … 159 people paying into the system for ever person what was taking money out it. By 1950, however, there were only 16 workers supporting each retiree. By 1965 it was down to 4 to 1. Now it’s slightly under three people supporting one, and by 2030 it’s predicted that there will only be two people supporting each *retiree*.
 
SS was a ponzi scheme … a liberal scam … from day one. And it’s plain as day if you just look at the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×